Almost completely caused by humans

China is committed to being carbon neutral by 2060 other countries have committed to 2050
by then it could be too late by that time.The planet could be too hot for any form of life to
survive it is getting its revenge on those who have so sorely abused it.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Really?

Actions speak louder than words, and in 2020 China built 3 times more coal fired energy capacity than the rest of the world combined.
Click to expand...
Who are you bigging up, China or you for being aware of this fact? Either way, it's irresponsible self-indulgence that will have catastrophic repercussions for the world.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
No Lost, I can't think of anything to say in response to yours without being angry or sarcastic. Hence, saying nowt.
Click to expand...

Well you could start with telling us how many nanoseconds you think giving up your log burner is going to buy the planet.

Beyond that, if the best you can come up with is anger or sarcasm, perhaps that shows that the faulty argument is yours.
 
Think back to the first lockdown how the air seemed a damn sight fresher and brighter with the reduction of car use. Imagine if that had continued (reduction in car use, not lockdown) with the addition of people doing what 1966 is doing how much of an improvement there would be. My guess is the environment would repair itself a damn sight quicker than the experts lead us to believe if we all acted responsibly.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
That really is a stupid comment 👎
Click to expand...

Really?

It seems that rather than develop new technologies that can be deployed across the world and other actions that might actually make a difference you're more interested in pointless gestures and virtue signalling that will have no effect whatsoever.

If you're interested BTW, wood is a CO2 neutral fuel source, thus by abandonning it and switching over to gas/electricity, he's arguably making climate change worse, though thankfully in an immeasurably small way.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Really?

It seems that rather than develop new technologies that can be deployed across the world and other actions that might actually make a difference you're more interested in pointless gestures and virtue signalling that will have no effect whatsoever.

If you're interested BTW, wood is a CO2 neutral fuel source, thus by abandonning it and switching over to gas/electricity, he's arguably making climate change worse, though thankfully in an immeasurably small way.
Click to expand...
But it isn't just down to new technology, governments or big business, we all have a role to play whether you like it or not.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Well I'm not laughing and our windmills are not pathetic. From where I sit China come across as traitors to nature and humanity.
Click to expand...
It sort of puts it into perspective though doesn’t it. Like I said earlier, while some of the bigger nations are doing this we are just paying lip service offering up carbon zero.
 
Scaramanga said:
It sort of puts it into perspective though doesn’t it. Like I said earlier, while some of the bigger nations are doing this we are just paying lip service offering up carbon zero.
Click to expand...
There's a lot more we need to do as a country. That's not doubted. But China's attitude is grievous, selfish and, ultimately, no use to them.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Really?

It seems that rather than develop new technologies that can be deployed across the world and other actions that might actually make a difference you're more interested in pointless gestures and virtue signalling that will have no effect whatsoever.

If you're interested BTW, wood is a CO2 neutral fuel source, thus by abandonning it and switching over to gas/electricity, he's arguably making climate change worse, though thankfully in an immeasurably small way.
Click to expand...
And it seems that your more interested in pointing the finger at anyone or everyone else whilst simultaneously waiting for someone to come along and wipe your arse for you.

And the whole "Wood is CO2 Neutral" bollocks is an absolute fallacy...Wood is a dirty burn and generates almost twice the CO2 per kWh compared to Natural Gas. By that ridiculous argument, Coal would also be "Carbon Neutral" because at some point the vegetation that produced it soaked up carbon.

As I've said, the reduction of Carbon will rely on many billions of small individual changes and not some utopic 'super technologies'.... Use less, use what you do use more efficiently, create local economies and travel less, recycle and re-use. Though ultimately, we need to trim our population by at least half and maybe even as much as 90%.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
And it seems that your more interested in pointing the finger at anyone or everyone else whilst simultaneously waiting for someone to come along a wipe your arse for you.

And the whole "Wood is CO2 Neutral bollocks is an absolute fallacy...Wood is a dirty burn and generates almost twice the CO2 per kWh compared to Natural Gas. By that ridiculous argument, Coal would also be "Carbon Neutral" because at some point the vegitation that produced it soaked up carbon.

As I've said, the reduction of Carbon will rely on many billions of small individual changes and not some utopic 'super technologies'.... Use less, Use what you do use more efficiently, create local economies and travel less, recycle and re-use. Though ultimately, we need to trim our population by at least half and maybe even as much as 90%.
Click to expand...
Good post X3, apart from the very end point. I hope, to God it doesn't come to that.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Good post X3, apart from the very end point. I hope, to God it doesn't come to that.
Click to expand...
I can't see how it can't in the end 1966 unfortunately.... We talk about Carbon, but that really is only a part of the problem... We've depleated fish stocks, polluted and knackered the seas, ruined the landscape through farming, poisoned our water systems, damaged our natural ecosystems with pesticides, fungicides and any other poison we can lay our hands on....The scale of the damage and destruction we cause is off the scale and the thing is... People aren't really prepared to change....

Lost and Co. are essentially looking for ways that technology can intervene and keep the same shit show going, whilst taking the piss out of people like yourself, who are prepared to go some way towards doing what is actually necessary.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I can't see how it can't in the end 1966 unfortunately.... We talk about Carbon, but that really is only a part of the problem... We've depleated fish stocks, polluted and knackered the seas, ruined the landscape through farming, poisoned our water systems, damaged our natural ecosystems with pesticides, fungicides and any other poison we can lay our hands on....The scale of the damage and destruction we cause is off the scale and the thing is... People aren't really prepared to change....

Lost and Co. are essentially looking for ways that technology can intervene and keep the same shit show going, whilst taking the piss out of people like yourself, who are prepared to go some way towards doing what is actually necessary.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's looking bad. 4 billion on the planet when I was eleven. What is it now, seven? My step-son's fiancee is pregnant. I worry what that child is going to grow up with.
 
EagleDay said:
But it isn't just down to new technology, governments or big business, we all have a role to play whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Okay, so the biggest problem with that statement is that you don't know what your role is or how to play it, and in fact the same applies to everyone because the system is far too complex.

66 et al has already proved that by ditching his log burner and thus making the climate situation worse, here's a fictional example that I think conveys the problem well: Tim Harford - Adapt (was going to post the text but the MB won't let me, you'll just have to follow the link)

Perhaps more fundamentally, even if you could make the right decision every time, it'd still make f*** all difference to the world as a whole.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
And it seems that your more interested in pointing the finger at anyone or everyone else whilst simultaneously waiting for someone to come along and wipe your arse for you.

And the whole "Wood is CO2 Neutral" bollocks is an absolute fallacy...Wood is a dirty burn and generates almost twice the CO2 per kWh compared to Natural Gas. By that ridiculous argument, Coal would also be "Carbon Neutral" because at some point the vegetation that produced it soaked up carbon.

As I've said, the reduction of Carbon will rely on many billions of small individual changes and not some utopic 'super technologies'.... Use less, use what you do use more efficiently, create local economies and travel less, recycle and re-use. Though ultimately, we need to trim our population by at least half and maybe even as much as 90%.
Click to expand...

What I'd really like is for people like you to stop pretending that it's a simple problem that can be solved with slogans, shouting and empty gestures, perhaps then policy might be formed rationally rather than on the belief that changes are going to be made at the individual level.

Oh, and while we're at it, in what other circumstances might advocating genocide on a scale never before seen be acceptable.
 
The worlds population is growing at a rapidly increasing rate. Like it or not ... that’s the problem... since the 1400’s our ability to circumnavigate natural selection is inevitably responsible. The industrial revolution and our “ have to have it now “ throw away society “ lifestyles just makes it worse. ALL humans are responsible and ALL humans can take responsibility and breed less... it costs nothing BUT we won’t because blaming someone else suits us better. There needs to be a World population control policy combined with a World sustainable living policy... if Greta and co really want to help our planet... stop the blame game... take politics and agenda out of it .... maybe , just maybe .....
 
Lost Seasider said:
What I'd really like is for people like you to stop pretending that it's a simple problem that can be solved with slogans, shouting and empty gestures, perhaps then policy might be formed rationally rather than on the belief that changes are going to be made at the individual level.

Oh, and while we're at it, in what other circumstances might advocating genocide on a scale never before seen be acceptable.
Click to expand...


I’m not sure that “What you would like” is of any particular relevance. It’s about what is necessary to enable us to continue to enjoy life on this planet over the longer term. So whether you like it or not, that will involve you, me, 1966 and the rest of the billions to make significant changes to the way we live our lives.

I’m not suggesting that responsibility for the implementation of the solution should be left up to the individual. Though that doesn’t mean that every positive action taken by each individual doesn’t matter or should be considered a hollow gesture… Every positive action, however small matters.

Having spent the last 4 decades working in energy and efficiency, I’d say that the key factor in driving Carbon reduction is changing individual human habits and attitudes.

Of course there will need to be properly implemented policy change, technology and, very likely a complete shift in worldwide economic objectives, but it will be us as individuals who will implement the change necessary.

Oh… and I’m not advocating genocide.. Though we certainly should consider fairly drastic measures to curb and reverse population growth…
 
Ironically it was China that started the one child per family policy in the early 80’s, which was reversed in the 2010’s to allow 2 children per family if one parent was an only child, now it’s totally confusing what the situation is. So should we promote this 2 children per family in the west? I think we should, as replicating ourselves more than twice is rather vain and a little selfish IMO. Unfortunately it wouldn’t be as easy to implement in Western Democracies as it was in the one party state of China, but it would be a start.
 
Levi501 said:
Ironically it was China that started the one child per family policy in the early 80’s, which was reversed in the 2010’s to allow 2 children per family if one parent was an only child, now it’s totally confusing what the situation is. So should we promote this 2 children per family in the west? I think we should, as replicating ourselves more than twice is rather vain and a little selfish IMO. Unfortunately it wouldn’t be as easy to implement in Western Democracies as it was in the one party state of China, but it would be a start.
Click to expand...
All very good but not a chance people of different faiths are going to like that.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Okay, so the biggest problem with that statement is that you don't know what your role is or how to play it, and in fact the same applies to everyone because the system is far too complex.

66 et al has already proved that by ditching his log burner and thus making the climate situation worse, here's a fictional example that I think conveys the problem well: Tim Harford - Adapt (was going to post the text but the MB won't let me, you'll just have to follow the link)

Perhaps more fundamentally, even if you could make the right decision every time, it'd still make f*** all difference to the world as a whole.
Click to expand...
Firstly, 1966 won't make the situation worse by ditching his woodburner... That is just your lack of understanding and the proliferation of a myth. And the ridiculous blog .... Come on FFS!! It's just another example of the lets dredge the bottom of the barrel to give us another excuse to do fuck all....It's also riddled with innacuracy
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I can't see how it can't in the end 1966 unfortunately.... We talk about Carbon, but that really is only a part of the problem... We've depleated fish stocks, polluted and knackered the seas, ruined the landscape through farming, poisoned our water systems, damaged our natural ecosystems with pesticides, fungicides and any other poison we can lay our hands on....The scale of the damage and destruction we cause is off the scale and the thing is... People aren't really prepared to change....

Lost and Co. are essentially looking for ways that technology can intervene and keep the same shit show going, whilst taking the piss out of people like yourself, who are prepared to go some way towards doing what is actually necessary.
Click to expand...
Harsh truth that Bifster.
Even a 10% reduction in the world population wouldn’t be enough. The maths are scary in regards the rate we breed and survive as a species and the resources we require
 
Is the answer and electric car version of Death Race 2000 with a bit of Hunger Games and The Running Man thrown in?
Cull the population and provide pay per view voyeurism to fund enviro projects.
 
poolseasider said:
All very good but not a chance people of different faiths are going to like that.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, but ‘something better change,’ and theres got to be mega changes in every dominion, religious and governmental alike, ‘The earth dies screaming’ but not as we envisaged in the early 80’s.
 
Time for bed. I'll finish by saying that individuals doing something to try to help the environment is positive. As I said at the OP, the big players, USA, China, India and Europe will have the biggest impact but I do believe individuals have a part to play.

Night, night.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Time for bed. I'll finish by saying that individuals doing something to try to help the environment is positive. As I said at the OP, the big players, USA, China, India and Europe will have the biggest impact but I do believe individuals have a part to play.

Night, night.
Click to expand...
What are the USA, China, India and Europe if not societies made up of millions / billions of individuals.
 
Tree planting should be massively ramped up, its something thats very easy and with an army of volunteers we could, throughout the world, help alleviate the problem a bit and buy a bit more time.

This as well as many other solutions and ways of cutting down can all add up to something meaningful.
 
It has to start with education.

For many households this is, and has always been, a fleeting headline in the news that not much real attention is paid to. Some households won’t even ever watch the news.
We need to somehow target at household level explaining what will help and what makes things worse and what the consequences will mean.
There maybe some intelligence on this board relating to the subject matter but there will be hundreds of thousands of households who won’t have a bloody clue.
 
Lala said:
It has to start with education.

For many households this is, and has always been, a fleeting headline in the news that not much real attention is paid to. Some households won’t even ever watch the news.
We need to somehow target at household level explaining what will help and what makes things worse and what the consequences will mean.
There maybe some intelligence on this board relating to the subject matter but there will be hundreds of thousands of households who won’t have a bloody clue.
Click to expand...
I think there's a big difference between adopting the attitude like Lost, that is dismissive of the value of individual action taken to tackle climate change and recognising that in order to scale that up we will require significant government intervention. Education will play a part, but in order to change habits significantly, you need to build it into your culture and you need to incentivise people to make the changes required.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I think there's a big difference between adopting the attitude like Lost, that is dismissive of the value of individual action taken to tackle climate change and recognising that in order to scale that up we will require significant government intervention. Education will play a part, but in order to change habits significantly, you need to build it into your culture and you need to incentivise people to make the changes required.
Click to expand...
Can’t disagree with that. It’s a massive ask, but it has to start somewhere, as a global venture and an individual venture.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Having spent the last 4 decades working in energy and efficiency, I’d say that the key factor in driving Carbon reduction is changing individual human habits and attitudes.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay, since you're an expert in the field what's the single biggest habit that everybody neads to change to stop global warming?
 
Lost Seasider said:
You've edited your previous post to include those.

They're both meaningless waffle, and if that's the best an expert can come up with then we have a real problem.
Click to expand...

You asked a question, I answered it…then you say the answer is meaningless waffle?

It’s a high level answer….

We need to control and reverse population growth.

We need to curtail our consumption and completely move away from the consumer based economy.

We need to stop being wasteful and control, conserve, recycle and re-use.

None of it is rocket science….

And to be frank with you in my experience the rocket science is completely pointless without first dealing with the human problem.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
You asked a question, I answered it…then you say the answer is meaningless waffle?

It’s a high level answer….
Click to expand...

Your answers boil down to either:
  1. we all need to be better people;
  2. genocide.
I hope it is obvious why both are problematic, and saying "it's a high level answer doesn't change that".


BFC_BFC_BFC said:
We need to control and reverse population growth.
Click to expand...

AKA genocide.


BFC_BFC_BFC said:
We need to curtail our consumption and completely move away from the consumer based economy.

We need to stop being wasteful and control, conserve, recycle and re-use.
Click to expand...

Buzz words, not practical advice.


BFC_BFC_BFC said:
None of it is rocket science….
Click to expand...

None of it means anything either.


BFC_BFC_BFC said:
And to be frank with you in my experience the rocket science is completely pointless without first dealing with the human problem.
Click to expand...

And we're back to either genocide, or waffle about being better people, or both.
 
The population problem will sort itself out, the last time I looked the rate of population growth has been steadily in decline since the 1980's. As countries develop their birth rates decrease as people choose to have fewer kids. We're at 7 billion soon and it will top off at 12 billion (give or take) by about 2100, before reducing again.

The vast majority of this growth will be in Asia and Africa, already these places have vast amounts of people compared to Europe and North America but on an individual level, they produce a fraction of the carbon emissions. If we don't find a way to make our lives sustainable, the rest of the world will catch up and pollute vast amounts more than developed countries do now, just because their populations are much bigger. It's up to more developed countries to develop a new way of living which is much more sustainable for those developing countries to follow, not only that but it must be clearly economically advantageous to do so.

The tools are already out there, but I fear not enough is being done - I'm incredibly skeptical of "net-zero" which to me seems to be a buzzword where you can pollute but so long as you plant some trees somewhere it's okay. We also need to address our economic system which relies on unsustainable growth year after year after year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top